nanog mailing list archives
Re: On topic of domains
From: Andrew Sullivan <asullivan () dyn com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:41:33 -0400
If the definition of "FQDN" in some RFCs (Informational or not) always included the trailing dot, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But that's not the case, so protocol slots have been established for "FQDNs" that are actually domains qualified relative to the root. Since this ambiguity has been around since the very dawn of the DNS, I suspect there is little chance of re-educating everyone in the world about this. A On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Chris Hills <chaz () chaz6 com> wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:27, Jon Mitchell wrote:After .nyc thread, thought this IAB announcement may be of interest.http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/-JonWhilst I am not a fan of dotless domains, as long as one uses the fully qualified domain name (e.g. http://ac./), there should not be any trouble using it in any sane software. It seems that most people aren't aware these days that a fqdn includes the trailing period (by definition).
Current thread:
- On topic of domains Jon Mitchell (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Tony McCrory (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Chris Hills (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Andrew Sullivan (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Guillaume Parent (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Mark Andrews (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Geoffrey Keating (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of dotless domains Doug Barton (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains bmanning (Jul 11)
- Message not available
- Re: On topic of domains Jimmy Hess (Jul 11)
- Re: On topic of domains Andrew Sullivan (Jul 12)
- Re: On topic of domains Larry Sheldon (Jul 11)